Avoiding Conflicts In Aristocratic Family Trusts

Kerry Venn

28 November 2025

The following commentary about trusts and their use by “aristocrats” (not a regular term in these pages) comes from Kerry Venn (pictured below), associate in the wills and trusts disputes team at EWHC3011
This recent case involved a family will trust created from an £8 million ($10.5 million) veterinary supplies business. The claimants sought trustee removal, alleging failures in notification, accounting, and fair treatment.

The court dismissed most allegations but noted that some of the trustees' recognised that hostility could impede proper administration. The court removed two trustees, (while retaining two family trustees), and appointed an independent professional trustee for oversight.

The judgment reaffirmed that trustee removal is guided by beneficiaries’ welfare and effective trust administration, balancing family representation with impartial oversight.

Case Study 2: The Earl of Yarmouth v Ragley Trust Company Ltd EWHC 1099 (Ch),
The opposite outcome was reached where Lord Yarmouth unsuccessfully challenged the trustees of his family's £85 million estate for allegedly failing to maximise income and being influenced by his parents. He subsequently sought their removal, claiming they lacked independence.

The trustees argued that their actions aligned with the settlor's wishes, Lord Yarmouth's grandfather, which was to prioritise the future preservation of Ragley Hall, the family estate.

The court upheld the trustees' position, confirming that they acted appropriately under the trust’s objectives. Lord Yarmouth was also ordered to pay both his and the trustees’ legal costs – estimated at over £1.3 million!

Legal costs: “Winner Takes All”
The Earl of Yarmouth's case illustrates the costly principle of “costs follow the event,” whereby the losing party generally pays the winner’s legal costs. This principle:
-- promotes fairness by compensating successful parties;
-- deters frivolous, weak claims and encourages responsible litigation; and
-- encourages settlements, reducing strain on the courts and unnecessary legal expense.

Courts do retain discretion and may depart from the rule, considering the parties' good faith, settlement offers, and conduct. However – the general principle stands, balancing fairness, efficiency, and access to justice while discouraging weak claims.

Conclusion
Intergenerational conflict in family trusts is common but avoidable. Clear drafting, professional trustees, transparent communication, flexible structures, and mediation clauses can dramatically reduce the risk of friction.

With the right planning, trusts can continue to do what they were designed for: preserve wealth, protect family legacies and support future generations – without dragging the family through costly a courtroom drama and eroding long-standing, valuable assets.